Whether the convictions were proper due to lack of federal jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ~1. Whether the convictions of Petitioner, to include twentyone (21) other Defendants, was in violation of the U.S. Constitution as the instant indictment failed to properly establish federal jurisdiction by not properly including the jurisdictional element of the “affect on interstate commerce" within its four corners. 2. Whether the conviction of Petitioner to include seven (7) other trial Defendants was proper as the trial judge failed to include the jurisdictional element of the “affect on : interstate commerce" and its charge within the four corners of the Court's drafted petit jury instructions. 3. Whether the convictions of Petitioner, to include seven (7) trial Defendants, was proper as the trial judge "constructively amended" the indictment by listing within the jury instructions statutes of convictions of which was not listed within the four corners of the indictment. 4. Whether the conviction of Petitioner, to include seven (7) trial defendants, was proper as the trial judge "con‘ stuctively amended" the indictment by not providing the federal jurisdictional element of the "affect on interstate commerce or its charge to the petit jury. 5. Whether the convictions of Petitioner, to include seven : (7) other Defendants was proper as the trial judge comm: 1 itted a "Hazel-Atlas" violation of "fraud on the Court" when it failed to insert the most crucial and essential element and charge needed for a federal RICO violation within its jury instructions; but did, however, insert the remaining four (4) elements within the petit jury . instruction in its entirety. ) , RELATED CASES United States v. Smith et al, No.: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judgment of Guilty Entered Dec. 7, 2012. United States v. Elkins, No.: 13-1941, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judgment Affirmed Sept. 10, 2014. United States v. Elkins, No.: 13-1941, United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied May 28, 2015. United States v. Elkins, No.: 4:16CV00645, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Motionl.to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. 2255 May 6, 2016. United States v. Elkins, No.: 21-3693, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, Motion to File a Successive Habeas Application Denied March 12, 2019. United States v. Elkins, No.: 21-3693, U.S. -Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, Motion for Authorization to File Successive Habeas Application Denied Jan. 18, 2022. United States v. Elkins, No.: 22-1592, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied April 4, 2022. United States v. Elkins, No.: 22-1592 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Notice of Appeal--Final Judgment: Petition for Rehearing Denied May 10, 2022. United States v. Elkins, No.: 22-2687, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case is Summarily Affirmed in Accordance with 8th Circuit Rule 47A Nov. 11, 2022. United States v. Elkins, No.: 2687 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Petition for Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 2023. Untied States v. Elkins, No.: 2687, U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit, Motion to Recall Mandate Denied Feb 13, 2023. JURISDICTION This case was summarily affirmed in accordance with Eighth Circuit Rule 47A on November 7, 2022. A Petition for Rehearing . by Panel was filea by Petitioner on December 21, 2022. The Petition for Rehearing by Panel was denied on January 11, 2023. A Mandate ussued on January ‘18, 2023. Petitioner filed a Motion to Recall Mandate on February 7, 2023. An Order denying the Motion to Recall Mandate was issued February 13, 2023. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1257(a). Jurisdiction of this Court is also equitably asserted pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 13(2) and 28 U.S.C. sec. 2101(c). The 90-day deadline for seeking review of a criminal judgment may be waived because the procedural rules adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for the orderly transact